An Assessment of the Effectiveness of e- learning in Corporate Training Programs . Strother. Florida Institute of Technology. Abstract. Corporate managers are constantly looking for more cost- effective. E- learning is less expensive than. In addition, many expenses – booking. However, some firms that have. Keywords: e- Learning; corporate; economic. Economic Benefits of Corporate e- Learning. Hall and Le. Cavalier (2. IBM saved US $2. 00 million in 1. Using a blend of Web- based (8. Ernst and Young reduced training costs by 3. Another Look at Evaluating Training Programs. The primary purpose is to ensure that the stated. Evaluation of training and. Techniques for Evaluating Training Programs. Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. As the current economic conditions are compelling companies to reconsider the expense and purpose of corporate training. Manual(on(TrainingEvaluation(. The pre/post test is a common form of evaluating training programs in terms of knowledge. The purpose is to provide. Purpose of Training and Development. Choose a Means of Evaluating Administer Training Evaluate the. Evaluating Training Programs. Evaluating Training Effectiveness. Kirkpatrick Model for Evaluating Effectiveness of Training Programs. Evaluating training effectiveness is important. Rockwell Collins reduced training expenditures by 4. Web- based training. Many other success stories exist. However, it is also true that some firms that have spent large amounts of money on new e- learning efforts have not received the desired economic advantages. In addition to generally positive economic benefits, other advantages such as convenience, standardized delivery, self- paced learning, and variety of available content, have made e- learning a high priority for many corporations. Much of the discussion about implementing e- learning has focused on the technology, but as Driscoll (2. There is no doubt that corporations are increasing their emphasis on e- learning. Forrester, an independent research firm that helps companies assess the effect of technology change on their operations, interviewed training managers at 4. Global 2. 50. 0 companies and found that all but one of them already had online initiatives in place (Dalton 2. A survey of 5. 00 training directors (Online Learning News, 2. Sixty percent had an e- learning initiative. Eight- six percent had a priority of converting current instructor- led sessions. Eighty percent will set up or expand knowledge- management programs. Seventy- eight percent were developing or enhancing electronic performance. ASTD (2. 00. 2), in its State of the Industry Report, noted that the year 2. The events of September 1. There is always a focus on the fiscal bottom line in corporate training; the comparatively low costs of e- learning are attractive. Even so, more corporations are looking at such options as blended learning, using more than one method of delivery (e. However, Clark (in Online Learning News 2. He feels they are making decisions based on programs they are familiar with rather than on concrete information about which programs actually produce effective results. Barron (2. 00. 1) observes that learning technology providers have been increasingly able to “demonstrate cost- savings and broader benefits, develop integrated offerings, and propose innovative ways of applying e- learning.” However, how do training managers decide which educational products and which learning technology providers actually produce effective results? How do they balance product quality with training costs? As the new corporate adage goes: “Wise training managers realize the bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price has been forgotten.” To justify making decisions about training programs independently of training cost considerations, managers need concrete measures of program effectiveness. While there is no doubt that we see an increasing number of case studies showing success with e- learning, it is still difficult to find solid research measures of learner achievement in the specialized setting of a corporate training program. Measuring Results. When we measure the results of e- learning, do we have to evaluate e- learning differently from traditional training methods? ASTD (2. 00. 0a) points out that current training evaluation techniques and processes can be expanded to include e- learning as a method of delivery. Indeed, they conclude that the techniques to evaluate e- learning are the same as evaluating other training solutions. How do we measure the results of e- learning, whatever the delivery method? Using Kirkpatrick’s classic model, any training – traditional or e- learning – can be evaluated at four progressive levels (Kirkpatrick 1. Level I: Reaction is a measure of learners’ reactions to the course. Level II: Learning is a measure of what they learned. Level III: Transfer is a measure of changes in their behavior when they return to the job after the training program. Level IV: Results is a measure of the business outcomes that occur because they are doing their jobs differently. Phillips (1. 99. 6) recommends the addition of a fifth level to Kirkpatrick’s model where appropriate. The new Level V is a measure of the Return on Investment (ROI), the cost- benefit ratio of training. In this level, the Level IV data are converted to monetary values and then compared with the cost of the training program. In spite of all the enthusiasm in corporate training programs for. An American Society of Training and Development (ASTD). Are they satisfied with what they learned? Do they regard the material as relevant to their work? Do they believe the material will be useful to them on the job? This level, therefore, does not measure learning; it simply measures how well the learners liked the training session. How do Learners Feel? It is not hard to find learner enthusiasm for e- learning. The majority of 1,0. Comments included: “I love that I have the flexibility to continue to hold a full time job.” “To study any time that best suits my busy schedule.” “I travel extensively.”. I was able to work with my instructor, receive tremendous technical support at all hours of the night and gain the same quality content and evaluation as my peers taking the same class on campus.” The survey reports that 7. This fact makes this study particularly relevant for corporate trainers who seek to fit e- learning into an already demanding work schedule. Corporations are beginning to gather more data on how their trainees feel about the use of e- learning technologies. For example, the following results were obtained from an ASTD- Masie Center study involving the experiences of more than 7. ASTD 2. 00. 1): Eighty- seven percent preferred to take digital courses during work hours. Fifty- two percent preferred e- learning in a workplace office area. Eighty- four percent would take a similar e- course if offered again. Thirty- eight percent said they generally preferred e- learning to classroom training. How do e- Learning Instructors Feel? This question is really an alternate application at Level I evaluation, examining the trainer rather than the trainee. For example, in a recent survey conducted by ecollege. Some said their students did even better online than in traditional classroom settings. In another Tele. Education study of 1. One faculty comment was: “Online students participate more, perform slightly better than, and are at least as satisfied as their on campus counterparts. From that I conclude that online education appears to be very effective!” (Tele. Education, 2. 00. These are qualitative results – both from the learners and instructors – but what about quantitative results? Level II – Learning. According to Kirkpatrick, learning is defined as the principles, facts, and techniques that are understood and absorbed by trainees. When trainers measure learning, they try to find out how much the skills, knowledge, or attitudes of their trainees have changed. Measuring learning requires a more rigorous process than a reaction survey. Ideally, both a pretest and posttest are given to trainees to determine how much they learned as a direct result of the training program. While many organizations do not measure at this level, other corporate training centers, such as Sun Corporation’s Network Academy, keep careful track of what employees have learned through the use of both pretests and posttests (Bylinsky, 2. What do Research Studies Show About Level II E- Learning? A comprehensive research bibliography on e- learning has received much attention. Compiled by Russell (1. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon provides one of the most frequently quoted rationales for the power of e- learning. This body of research demonstrates that no significant difference can be found no matter what medium is used for learning. In many of these studies, the model is asynchronous learning delivered to the learner on demand. The findings demonstrate that even with no instructor or face- to- face interaction, there are no significant differences in the amount of content learned. A related website, supported by Tele. Education NB, New Brunswick, Canada, includes extracts from more than 3. No Significant Difference phenomenon. This is one time that a finding of no significant differences is actually a compelling factor in favor of e- learning. If corporations can get all of the advantages of e- learning with the same level of results as an instructor- led classroom situation, then the economic advantage for e- learning becomes even stronger. Wegner, Holloway, and Garton (1. Southwest Missouri State University. Although there were no statistically significant differences in test scores, this two- semester study yielded qualitative data that indicated that students in the e- learning group had, overall, more positive feelings about their experience than did the control group. This observation is consistent with those found in a number of the “no significant difference” studies. However, it is becoming more common not to find the same level of results. While some studies show greater benefits in favor of face- to- face delivery, research results consistently demonstrate superior benefits of e- learning in general. In addition to higher performance results, there are other immediate benefits to students such as increased time on task, higher levels of motivation, and reduced test anxiety for many learners. Nettles, et al., (2. An alternate website to the No Significant Differences one, also supported by Tele. Education NB, features comparative studies that do show significant differences, most of which report positive results in favor of e- learning. For example, Maki, et al., (2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |